Torres v. Madrid

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a Fourth Amendment seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued, so the officers seized Roxanne Torres at the instant their bullets struck her despite her escape. Consulting the common law of arrest, in which the slightest touch with intent to restrain completed an arrest, the Court rejected the officers' proposed unitary 'intentional acquisition of physical control' test as inconsistent with history and precedent, and held that a seizure by force lasts only as long as the application of force absent submission. It left open the reasonableness of the seizure, damages, and qualified immunity, vacating the Tenth Circuit's judgment. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented, contending that a seizure requires taking possession and that the majority conflated seizures with attempts and arrests with batteries.